South Africa Case Law

eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Others (248/CAC/JUL23)

eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Others (248/CAC/JUL23) [2023] ZACAC 4; [2023] 3 CPLR 32 (CAC) (16 August 2023)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

248/CAC/JUL23

Judges

Manoim JP, Davis AJA, Nkosi AJA

The Court held that section 49C(5) of the Competition Act is capable of more than one interpretation. Interpreting the section to allow only a single extension of interim relief would unduly limit access to effective remedies and could result in irreparable harm to applicants who establish a prima facie case of anti-competitive conduct. Such a restrictive reading would be inconsistent with section 34 of the Constitution, which guarantees access to courts and fair hearings. Applying the principles of constitutional interpretation, the Court found that section 49C(5) should be read to permit mu…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Interim Relief
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Access To Court
• Constitutional Validity
• Extension Of Interdict

Mlonzi and Another v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another (IR1360CT22)

Mlonzi and Another v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another (IR1360CT22) [2023] ZACT 61; [2024] 1 CPLR 2 (CT) (2 August 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

IR1360CT22

Judges

M Mazwai, T Ngcukaitobi, F Tregenna

The Tribunal dismissed an interim relief application against Eskom’s supplier de-registration of Econ Oil, finding no prima facie abuse of dominance or balance of convenience.

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Exclusionary Conduct
• Buyer Power
• Interim Relief
• Administrative Action
• Competition-law

Mercantile Bank, A division of Capitec Bank Limited and Others v Surve and Others (206/CAC/Oct22 ; 208/CAC/Oct22 ; 209/CAC/Oct22 ; 210/CAC/Oct22 ; IR153Dec21)

Mercantile Bank, A division of Capitec Bank Limited and Others v Surve and Others (206/CAC/Oct22 ; 208/CAC/Oct22 ; 209/CAC/Oct22 ; 210/CAC/Oct22 ; IR153Dec21) [2023] ZACAC 2; [2023] 3 CPLR 33 (CAC) (17 June 2023)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

206/CAC/Oct22 ; 208/CAC/Oct22 ; 209/CAC/Oct22 ; 210/CAC/Oct22 ; IR153Dec21

Judges

Manoim JP, Mlambo AJA, Spilg AJA

The Competition Appeal Court upheld three banks’ appeal, set aside interim relief orders, and held Sekunjalo had not shown a prima facie competition-law case.

• Refusal To Deal
• Concerted Practice
• Abuse Of Dominance
• Interim Relief
• Prima Facie Case
• Regulatory Compliance

Apollo Studios (Pty) Ltd and Another v Audatex SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (IR198Mar23)

Apollo Studios (Pty) Ltd and Another v Audatex SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (IR198Mar23) [2023] ZACT 23 (8 May 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

IR198Mar23

Judges

J Wilson, M Mazwai, L Mncube

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case of a prohibited practice under section 8(1)(d)(ii) or section 8(1)(c) of the Competition Act. While Audatex is prima facie dominant in the relevant estimation market, the evidence did not show that the service provided was 'scarce' or that Apollo's removal from the platform would exclude it from the parts procurement market. Alternative solutions for insurer customers were available, and there was insufficient evidence of anti-competitive effects or irreparable harm. Audatex's concern regarding protection of confide…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Refusal To Supply
• Interim Relief
• Exclusionary Conduct
• Anti Competitive Effects

Emedia Investments Proprietary Limited South Africa v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Another (201/CAC/JUN22)

Emedia Investments Proprietary Limited South Africa v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Another (201/CAC/JUN22) [2022] ZACAC 9; [2022] 2 CPLR 23 (CAC) (1 August 2022)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

201/CAC/JUN22

Judges

M Victor, N Manoim, L Nuku

The majority of the Competition Appeal Court found that eMedia had made out a prima facie case for interim relief. MultiChoice's refusal to broadcast eMedia's channels on the DStv platform, given its overwhelming dominance and lack of realistic alternatives for channel providers, amounted to exclusionary conduct and a refusal to supply a scarce service. The DStv platform is a scarce distribution facility, and eMedia's inability to access it would cause irreparable harm, limiting its ability to compete and grow. The balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief, as MultiChoice would…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Refusal To Supply
• Exclusionary Conduct
• Interim Relief
• Scarce Services
• Balance Of Convenience

Makarenge Electrical Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Wilec v Albro (Pty) Ltd and Another (IR095Oct21)

Makarenge Electrical Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Wilec v Albro (Pty) Ltd and Another (IR095Oct21) [2022] ZACT 18; [2022] 1 CPLR 17 (CT) (29 April 2022)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

IR095Oct21

Judges

Mondo Mazwai, Andiswa Ndoni, Liberty Mncube

The Tribunal found that Allbro, as a dominant firm in the transformer bushings market, engaged in exclusionary conduct by threatening customers with litigation based on untested intellectual property claims, thereby inducing them not to deal with Wilec and Ukusa. This conduct resulted in substantial foreclosure, preventing Wilec from accessing key customers such as Actom and Revive, and indirectly Eskom, the largest purchaser. The Tribunal held that the Competition Act applies to intellectual property rights unless an exemption is granted, and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to regulate co…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Exclusionary Conduct
• Intellectual Property Interface
• Interim Relief
• Foreclosure
• Consumer Welfare

Surve and Others v Nedbank Limited and Another (698/2022)

Surve and Others v Nedbank Limited and Another (698/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 19 (14 February 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

698/2022

Judge

Francis

The High Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the interim interdict sought by the applicants, as both the Equality Court and the Competition Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to determine interim and interlocutory relief in matters of unfair discrimination and prohibited practices, respectively. The statutory frameworks of PEPUDA and the Competition Act assign such powers expressly to these specialist bodies, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court. The application was brought on an urgent basis, but urgency was accepted. However, since the relief sought was within t…

Source excerpt

• Bank Account Termination
• Interim Interdict
• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Reputational Risk
• Unfair Discrimination
• Abuse Of Dominance

Competition Commission v Shoprite Checkers [Pty] Ltd and Another (183/CAC/Apr20 CT; CR228DEC18/DSM258FEB19)

Competition Commission v Shoprite Checkers [Pty] Ltd and Another (183/CAC/Apr20 CT; CR228DEC18/DSM258FEB19) [2020] ZACAC 9 (27 October 2020)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

183/CAC/Apr20 CT

Judges

Vally JA, Mnguni

The Tribunal's findings in paragraphs [28], [36], and [37] were definitive and final, as they precluded the Commission from pursuing its case based on the Single Economic Entity doctrine in section 8 abuse of dominance proceedings. The Commission could not meaningfully amend its referral without repeating averments already rejected by the Tribunal, rendering the opportunity to amend illusory. The Tribunal erred in restricting the SEE doctrine to section 4 horizontal practices and in failing to recognise that the pleaded facts could support its application to section 8. The findings in [28], […

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Single Economic Entity
• Exception Procedure
• Accessory Liability
• Section 8 Competition Act

Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd v Vexall (Pty) Ltd and Another (182/CAC/Mar20)

Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd v Vexall (Pty) Ltd and Another (182/CAC/Mar20) [2020] ZACAC 4; [2020] 2 CPLR 490 (CAC) (15 July 2020)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

182/CAC/Mar20

Judges

Unterhalter, Davis, Vally

The Competition Appeal Court held that BCX could not appeal the interim order on the merits because it had no final or irreversible effect, but the costs order was appealable and was set aside.

• Interim Relief
• Appealability Of Orders
• Costs Awards
• Abuse Of Dominance
• Tying Arrangements
• Competition-law

Competition Commission v Sanitech a division of Waco Africa (Pty) Ltd (CO047Jun20)

Competition Commission v Sanitech a division of Waco Africa (Pty) Ltd (CO047Jun20) [2020] ZACT 65 (2 June 2020)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO047Jun20

Judges

Enver Daniels, Andiswa Ndoni, AW Wessels

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement between the Competition Commission and Sanitech as an order of the Tribunal.

• Consent Agreement
• Abuse Of Dominance
• Competition-law
• Consent-agreement
• Abuse-of-dominance